Why Steelie? Why? Not because they have to by law. Because employers will CHOOSE to eliminate coverage.

And why is that? OMG because of the decrease in TAXES. Who'd a thunk it."CBO said that this year's tax cuts have changed the incentives for businesses and made it less attractive to pay for insurance, meaning fewer will decide to do so. Instead, they'll choose to pay a penalty to the government, totaling $13 billion in higher fees over the next decade."

But but but but lowering taxes WILL ALWAYS incentivize business.....Yup sure will and it will become even more obvious as time goes by. This is only cracking the lid. Once the jar is opened....

<quoted text>Why Steelie? Why? Not because they have to by law. Because employers will CHOOSE to eliminate coverage.And why is that? OMG because of the decrease in TAXES. Who'd a thunk it."CBO said that this year's tax cuts have changed the incentives for businesses and made it less attractive to pay for insurance, meaning fewer will decide to do so. Instead, they'll choose to pay a penalty to the government, totaling $13 billion in higher fees over the next decade."But but but but lowering taxes WILL ALWAYS incentivize business.....Yup sure will and it will become even more obvious as time goes by. This is only cracking the lid. Once the jar is opened....Told ya so.

Business will do what Obama wants them to do. He wants and has made NO secret that he wants them to put their employees in public exchanges, that's why the fine was basically minimal. When you consider that the value of my health insurance for the year was over $10K, don't you think that fine is peanuts???? Of course, you don't like common sense much, at least on the part of a business. Saw that coming, or maybe you didn't?

I always find it funny to see a member of the good old boys club know as the Chamber of Commerce coming on here to blame the government for something that private business does.

You've had a few to many martinis at lunch if you think that getting rid of Obamacare would magically make greedy businesses change their policies of screwing over their employees in favor of their shareholders.

Isn't it about time that we make the health care industry demand that the uninsured pay in advance for medical services?

<quoted text>Business will do what Obama wants them to do. He wants and has made NO secret that he wants them to put their employees in public exchanges, that's why the fine was basically minimal. When you consider that the value of my health insurance for the year was over $10K, don't you think that fine is peanuts???? Of course, you don't like common sense much, at least on the part of a business. Saw that coming, or maybe you didn't?

As your conspiratorial assumption is the fines are basically minimal to put employees in the public exchange, my assumption is to have made it easier on the (truly) small businesses. As health insurance is a private sector industry it is subject to the carriers raising their premiums at will. And be it the intent or not it does lessen the burden on those small business to "pay the fine" when the premiums became more expensive than the "fine". Making the fine a lower premium and still make health insurance more affordable.

And remember the "fine" structure and the requirement that EVERYONE have health insurance was a health insurance lobby demand. Obama wanted a single payer system but compromised.

Perhaps you don't understand it and perhaps you do and just don't care because you are so enamored with the wealthy.In the past 40 years the middle class incomes have stagnated while the incomes of the wealthy, that includes corporate profits, have skyrocketed; http://www.cnbc.com/id/49697900/Middle_Class_...Along with that middle class income stagnation has been the passing down of the cost of health insurance to the workers. Along with that the ever increasing deductibles and co-pays. Decreasing THEIR incomes while increasing the profit margins of companies.

Now, as I have said innumerable times before, the lowering of taxes on business is making it more profitable for businesses to pass the costs of health care insurance onto the "public exchange". The fines are lower than the premiums. All the while I have no doubt the income levels of the middle class will continue to stagnate. In Fact I know of one large foreign owned company, right here in GR, that has reduced their shop wages to where they were in the 70s. Plus increased their (employee) health insurance contributions.

In FACT, I know of several retirees that have had their promised retirement benefits of provided for health care costs abandoned by their employers.

So from my perspective it's the corporate world that wants to pass the costs of health care insurance onto the "public exchange". And who can blame them when it serves to increase their profit margins eh.

And I know for a FACT that behind the curtains the corporate world has been trying to get a public health care system in place for at least 30 years. It just hasn't been good PR to let it be known outright.

<quoted text>Why Steelie? Why? Not because they have to by law. Because employers will CHOOSE to eliminate coverage.And why is that? OMG because of the decrease in TAXES. Who'd a thunk it."CBO said that this year's tax cuts have changed the incentives for businesses and made it less attractive to pay for insurance, meaning fewer will decide to do so. Instead, they'll choose to pay a penalty to the government, totaling $13 billion in higher fees over the next decade."But but but but lowering taxes WILL ALWAYS incentivize business.....Yup sure will and it will become even more obvious as time goes by. This is only cracking the lid. Once the jar is opened....Told ya so.

I neglected to add this...from the same article linked by Steelie:

For those who don't care to read and comprehend the entire context;"But the non-partisan agency [CBO] also expects fewer people to have to pay individual penalties to the IRS than it earlier projects, because of a better method for calculating incomes that found more people will be exempt."

Should there be any "penalties" for not having health care coverage? Should there be any "requirement" for anyone to have health care coverage? Perhaps not. But one has to look at all the indicators used to relate the health of the national economy...the GDP. Included in the GDP figures IS health care. Good or bad health is intrinsic to employment. Also a factor involved in the GDP.

And for those who believe if they just work harder than their immediate associates they will be compensated appropriately, the laughs on you. It is not the general practice of companies to pay any employee any significant amount more than the general localized job title demographic.

In simpler terms if the demographic pay scale for a job title is $50K the chances are not good anyone is going to be paid $55K-$60K. Especially when they can likely get someone else to take the $50K and be happy with that.

And if working harder and longer than others is to move up the ladder, then good on ya and good luck.

This is not "hate business" speak. This simple is recognition of reality.

<quoted text>Why Steelie? Why? Not because they have to by law. Because employers will CHOOSE to eliminate coverage.And why is that? OMG because of the decrease in TAXES. Who'd a thunk it."CBO said that this year's tax cuts have changed the incentives for businesses and made it less attractive to pay for insurance, meaning fewer will decide to do so. Instead, they'll choose to pay a penalty to the government, totaling $13 billion in higher fees over the next decade."But but but but lowering taxes WILL ALWAYS incentivize business.....Yup sure will and it will become even more obvious as time goes by. This is only cracking the lid. Once the jar is opened....Told ya so.

Good Day,

Hey SIB! I fully expected you might pick up on that. I have spent nearly the last hour while building things in my hobby room searching for these so called "tax cuts" and their content. No luck so far. I am very curious to read how they were written and by whom. Not to be a conspiracist, but it seems to me this was the intended result.

That said... seem to remember someone saying the following in 2009:

no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what."

<quoted text>As your conspiratorial assumption is the fines are basically minimal to put employees in the public exchange, my assumption is to have made it easier on the (truly) small businesses. As health insurance is a private sector industry it is subject to the carriers raising their premiums at will. And be it the intent or not it does lessen the burden on those small business to "pay the fine" when the premiums became more expensive than the "fine". Making the fine a lower premium and still make health insurance more affordable.

And remember the "fine" structure and the requirement that EVERYONE have health insurance was a health insurance lobby demand. Obama wanted a single payer system but compromised.

Perhaps you don't understand it and perhaps you do and just don't care because you are so enamored with the wealthy.In the past 40 years the middle class incomes have stagnated while the incomes of the wealthy, that includes corporate profits, have skyrocketed; http://www.cnbc.com/id/49697900/Middle_Class_...Along with that middle class income stagnation has been the passing down of the cost of health insurance to the workers. Along with that the ever increasing deductibles and co-pays. Decreasing THEIR incomes while increasing the profit margins of companies.

Now, as I have said innumerable times before, the lowering of taxes on business is making it more profitable for businesses to pass the costs of health care insurance onto the "public exchange". The fines are lower than the premiums. All the while I have no doubt the income levels of the middle class will continue to stagnate. In Fact I know of one large foreign owned company, right here in GR, that has reduced their shop wages to where they were in the 70s. Plus increased their (employee) health insurance contributions.

In FACT, I know of several retirees that have had their promised retirement benefits of provided for health care costs abandoned by their employers.

So from my perspective it's the corporate world that wants to pass the costs of health care insurance onto the "public exchange". And who can blame them when it serves to increase their profit margins eh.

And I know for a FACT that behind the curtains the corporate world has been trying to get a public health care system in place for at least 30 years. It just hasn't been good PR to let it be known outright.

As far as health care, it isn't a right by any stretch of the imagination. Business provides it as a way to attract better employees, just as McDonalds will pay $1 more than the BK right across the street. Larger businesses will continue to provide it because they want the best employees and they have more customers they can pass the costs on to.

Smaller businesses often don't have the ability to provide health care or pay the fines, leaving them only with lousy choices that those of us in business foresaw but liberals were either too stupid to see or truly want in order to make more people dependent on the government.http://m.spectator.org/169477/show/749121025d... ?

Either way, we have been in a liberal recovery for more than three years now. Within the next two years we will follow history and go into another recession or depression.

At that point will voters realize the left has no real solutions, just economic fantasies, or will they continue to believe that the government truly cares about them and really wants their lives to be better.

My money is on the masses continuing to be ignorant and believe the big lie that government is their friend.

<quoted text>Good Day,Hey SIB! I fully expected you might pick up on that. I have spent nearly the last hour while building things in my hobby room searching for these so called "tax cuts" and their content. No luck so far. I am very curious to read how they were written and by whom. Not to be a conspiracist, but it seems to me this was the intended result.That said... seem to remember someone saying the following in 2009:no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what."Pretty much the jist of it...Steelie

I would think the tax cuts you are trying to locate are the 99% of the Bush temporary tax cuts that Obama caved in on making them permanent, with Boehner prancing around thumping his chest as a victory over Obama, to avoid the "fiscal cliff".

And I do believe I addressed the "conspiracy theory" to Really farther up here.

Although I could entertain the idea of a conspiracy that the Teapublicans had this preplanned. Knowing full well the tie-in of expenditures versus their write-off/deduction and the end point where those write-offs are no longer "valuable". They are after-all very well advised by the corporate talking heads on how these things work and their consequences. Being made aware the "fines" outweigh the costs of providing health care coverage. But then the CBO already pointed that part out so it should be no big secret.

And to..."seem to remember someone saying the following in 2009:no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what." Ya, well that little dig is all over the internet on every site na-na-na-naing this. The Teapublicans are going to make good and sure that isn't going to happen, for no other reason than they just have NEVER liked Obama and any cost is worth the "victory". Because it will be the public that pays the price not them.

<quoted text>We've been over this so we know that facts and information aren't of interest, but for those that are interested in the true status of the middle income folks, you might want to look at this:http://stats.org/stories/2008/myth_decline_mi...As far as health care, it isn't a right by any stretch of the imagination. Business provides it as a way to attract better employees, just as McDonalds will pay $1 more than the BK right across the street. Larger businesses will continue to provide it because they want the best employees and they have more customers they can pass the costs on to.Smaller businesses often don't have the ability to provide health care or pay the fines, leaving them only with lousy choices that those of us in business foresaw but liberals were either too stupid to see or truly want in order to make more people dependent on the government.http://m.spectator.org/169477/show/749121025d... ?Either way, we have been in a liberal recovery for more than three years now. Within the next two years we will follow history and go into another recession or depression.At that point will voters realize the left has no real solutions, just economic fantasies, or will they continue to believe that the government truly cares about them and really wants their lives to be better.My money is on the masses continuing to be ignorant and believe the big lie that government is their friend.

Ya well Dr. Stephen Rose the principal at Rose Economic Consulting sure beats the hell out of Michael Greenstone MIT economics professor and director of the Brookings Institute Hamilton Project every time. Gotta wonder when MIT will ever come to the level of an economics consulting FIRM.

The rest of it I won't even bother with as it's just more jibber jabber opinion on why trickle down economics is the best thing since, well, everything else with one more dead link.

I know, facts don't matter to liberals;"Concluding RemarksMeasures of income dispersion show a distribution of income across U.S. households that hasbecome comparatively more unequal over time as high-income U.S. households have benefitteddisproportionately from economic growth and that is less equal compared with distributions inmany other developed countries. It also appears that going from rags to riches is relatively rare;that is, where one starts in the U.S. income distribution greatly influences where one ends up."http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42400.pdfBut then hey, this is a "government" assessment so it can't be true.

"Over the past several decades, the United States has undergone a remarkabletransformation, with income growth stalling for the middle class while theincomes of those at the top continued to rise dramatically compared to the rest ofthe working population. Between 1979 and 2007, the last year before the GreatRecession, median family income rose by 35 percent, while incomes for thoseat the 99th percentile rose by 278 percent.(see Figure 1) Families in the middleclass have also pulled away from those at the bottom, but achieved these modestincome gains only by working longer hours, increasing their labor supplyparticularlyamong wives and mothersand increasing household debts to maintainconsumption as wages failed to keep pace with inflation."http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/up...But seeing as this is the Center for American Progress it also can't be right. It has the word progress in it.

<quoted text>Ya well Dr. Stephen Rose the principal at Rose Economic Consulting sure beats the hell out of Michael Greenstone MIT economics professor and director of the Brookings Institute Hamilton Project every time. Gotta wonder when MIT will ever come to the level of an economics consulting FIRM.

The rest of it I won't even bother with as it's just more jibber jabber opinion on why trickle down economics is the best thing since, well, everything else with one more dead link.

And again, since you can't argue with the facts you just make stuff up.

BTW Dr. Rose Stephen J. Rose is a Senior Economist at the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. He's been a nationally recognized economist for over 30 years.

<quoted text>And again, since you can't argue with the facts you just make stuff up.BTW Dr. Rose Stephen J. Rose is a Senior Economist at the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. He's been a nationally recognized economist for over 30 years.http://cew.georgetown.edu/83987.htmlAnd you seriously think of economics when you think of MIT? You have to be the only one in the world, or perhaps you didn't realize the T in MIT stands for Technology, not Twinkies.

Yes I know. I read through your STAT link. I even looked up this Dr. Stephen Rose and another paper he wrote. Read them through thoroughly. Something I don't ever get the impression you do.

Anyway through all of Dr. Rose's mirco explanations I did not see where he actually concluded disputing what all the rest I had cited said. More so just explaining ad nauseam why it all happens.

He also spend a ridiculous amount of linkage to those other "economists" view points he was saying he disagrees with. ONLY ONE (link) to the PEW Institute that seemed was in somewhat agreement with. But in the end isn't.

Oh, he spent an exhausting amount of time and virtual ink and verbiage explaining how over time these things happen and will re-occur through time but did not dispute the middle class income hasn't kept pace with the economy. Even the Pew link in Dr. Rose's STAT said basically the same thing. As did the PEW Institute link I placed said it much clearer and in much shorter terms. Rose just tried to explain it away with all the reasons these things happen and will happen again.

I completely understand the reasoning, and even the need, behind explaining the why of something being the way it is. But it is a very dangerous path to autopilot to mean that's the way it should be.

I've said several times I'm not completely sure a national health care system is the way to go. YET no one is denying our medical system, as far as cost to the patients, is out of control. And EVERY TIME conservatives are asked what their answer to it is they say we'll let you know after we get elected into control.

Well duh Einstein. Who would have thought the T in MIT, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, would have stood for Technology. Because of that I suppose they aren't known for the brightest minds in their schools, whatever discipline, in your mind.

And to the point you made about the failed liberal recovery: Yes it has been lack luster. But I have no doubt you is discard the obstructionism that has been placed in front of it. And of course you can explain away how it got here in the first place. Other than it was caused by the liberals. Talk about making stuff up.

My sense of "fairness" (oh that ugly word) made me wonder how it could possibly be that Pew Research could come to two separate conclusions. The one linked in the STAT link and the link I posted. So I thought I'd revisit it just to make sure I wasn't making a mistake.

What I found was I hadn't. The middle class incomes have not kept pace in comparison;"Since 1969, median household income has risen for all Americans. But it has not risen as much for the middle income group as for the lower and upper income groups.

The growth in median family income has been slower and more skewed to upper income groups since 1973 than it had been in earlier decades.

Since 1999, all income groups have seen their real incomes decline.Since hitting a peak in 1999, median household income has declined for all three income groups. On a percentage basis, the decline from 1999 to 2006 has been slightly greater for the lower income group (5%) than for the middle income group (3%) or the upper income group (2%). This is one of the longest periods in modern history in which this key economic indicator has not returned to an earlier peak although the trend in recent decades has been toward protracted but shallow declines following periods of growth. Should the economy fall into a new recession as many economists now predict the current downturn would become the longest in modern history.http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2008/04/09/ins...

It's gotta be a tough life to have your income increase just short of double in 12 years. While no one else in that time period experienced the same increase.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.